Dipankar Chakrabarty. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner who while serving as Assistant Controller of Examinations in Indian Institute of

Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST), Shibpur was served with order of suspension dated 15th June, 2016. This order of suspension ran for

ninety days.

Long thereafter it was sought to be extended by forming a review committee as informed by institute’s letter dated 25th October, 2017. Mr. Saha

Roy submits, this is in clear violation of Rule 10 (6) and (7) in the Central Civil Services (Class., Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The said provisions

are set out below : -

“[(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify

or revoke the suspension [before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension] on the recommendation of the Review Committee

constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent review shall be made before expiry of the

extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.]

[(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days

unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.

Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule(2), if the Government servant

continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days’ period in such case will count from

the date of Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated

to his appointing authority, whichever is later.]†He also relies on the case of Union of India & Ors. â€" Vs â€" Dipak Mali decided by Supreme

Court and reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222. He relies on paragraph 11 of the judgement which is extracted below : -

“11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the respondent’s case, is

not very convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under

the said Act was admitted.

In this case, what is important is that by operation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the

period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of

suspension, it became invalid after 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become

invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension.â€​

Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate appears on behalf of the institute. He confirms that the said rules apply to the institute. Case of petitioner is

clearly covered by Dipak Mali (supra). The impugned letter dated 25th October, 2017 of the institute is set aside and quashed. The writ petition is

allowed to the extent aforesaid. Mr. Saha Roy submits there remains nothing in the other writ petition to be decided.Hence the same is dismissed as

not pressed.